Moving to FF for second system (never shot FF before)

I am considering investing in a second system. Specifically Nikon D610. However, I have never shot full frame before. I primary shoot travel/hiking (recently been to japan, patagonia, hiking peru etc), landscape/cityscape and long exposure milky way.

My main reason is for low light, milky way shots, larger prints, higher dynamic range for landscapes. reduce primes and shoot zooms. I would sell off one omd body and most lenses only keeping the 12-40mm and 40-150mm as I will not be investing in a telephoto of that length in full frame for awhile.

My questions are:
1. How will I fare without an EVF for exposure purposes?
2. How do the nikkor lenses shape up against the sharpness of the omd primes eg the 45mm
3. How do the nikkor lenses shape up againt the omd zooms in terms of sharpness etc.
4. How much will I miss IBIS when shooting hand held compare to the nikon lens stabilization.

Edit: D610 not D600, also not really considering the D800 due to the file sizes.

First and foremost, check the prices of used D800e. If landscape, cityscape, are the goals then I would look at the higher resolution AA filter canceled sensor of the D800e.

To fund the difference I would look VERY closely at the new Tamron 15-30 f/2.8. I would also consider the Tamron 24-70 VC. Given your intended use you'll probably be at smaller apertures and slower shutter speeds, VC might be an advantage.

The D600/D610 sensor is very good (though I would go D610 and not D600, I had one recalled). And I would still consider the above lenses even if you decide on the D600/D610. And if you do than consider one of the Sigma Art primes in place of the 50 f/1.8.

I shoot with a D610 (and D300) in addition to my m4/3rd's gear. My lens selection is a bit different than the ones you are considering so I cannot comment on them directly as the only one that I onw is the 50, and I do not use it that much. IMHO, the questions that you are asking are a bit of an apples to oranges comparison. Shooting with a full-size DSLR is a different experience, not unlike getting out of a sports sedan and getting into a full-size sport utility.

You metering will not rely on direct feedback in the VF and will instead be based on shot review. I frequently use Nikon's 60 and 105 macro lenses, and think highly of them, as I do Olympus' 45 and 60, two lenses that I also frequently shoot. Different personalities, but none of them concern me about IQ. The two Nikon zooms that you mention are part of their Holy Trinity. The 14-24 has an amazing reputation (although it has a very large protruding front element) and the 24-70 is a bit of a tired workhorse, but still a workhorse lens. Regarding IBIS, you are going to need to adapt your shooting style (and exposure settings) as while lenses with VRII are quite good, Oly's IBIS is really quite amazing and nothing like that currently exists in the Nikon world.

Try and rent a body if at all possible to see what you think. I just accept it as a different shooting experience, and am happy that I am fortunate enough to have the choice of choosing equipment when I shoot. And rather than compare them to each other, I just try to focus on what they offer and make my gear selection accordingly. The one area where differences do tend to be noticeable to me is post processing in LR. I tend to find Nikon's raw files easier to work with, but that may be because I have a number of additional years processing them over my Olympus and Panasonic files. They can all produce excellent images, but I find that my NEF files are a bit more malleable, but then again that may be due to familiarity. You can always download samples and play with them if that is a concern.

There are a number of Nikon shooters here, so I am sure that you will get additional opinions and recommendations for consideration.

I am considering investing in a second system. Specifically Nikon D610. However, I have never shot full frame before. I primary shoot travel/hiking (recently been to japan, patagonia, hiking peru etc), landscape/cityscape and long exposure milky way.

My main reason is for low light, milky way shots, larger prints, higher dynamic range for landscapes. reduce primes and shoot zooms. I would sell off one omd body and most lenses only keeping the 12-40mm and 40-150mm as I will not be investing in a telephoto of that length in full frame for awhile.

My questions are:
1. How will I fare without an EVF for exposure purposes?
2. How do the nikkor lenses shape up against the sharpness of the omd primes eg the 45mm
3. How do the nikkor lenses shape up againt the omd zooms in terms of sharpness etc.
4. How much will I miss IBIS when shooting hand held compare to the nikon lens stabilization.

Edit: D610 not D600, also not really considering the D800 due to the file sizes.

Click to expand...

I highly advice you to go with the Nikon D750 instead. It's a much better and reliable camera than the D600/D610 as it is more compact and faster than the D600/D610 for not much more extra money.

16MP vs 24MP is not going to have a big impact resolution wise from a large print point of view. 36MP however is better in this regard and make a more obvious impact in prints, even from a JPEG file!

However, working with an OVF rather than an EVF is a pain. You can't see the results live like you do with your OMD or the Sony A7/A7r/A7s.

Sony line of lenses aren't so great at the moment, but they are growing and the lenses you're looking for Sony has it.

I looked at the A7 but am not happy with the current native lens selection available.

Click to expand...

Understood, but that's the beauty of the mirrorless systems - you can adapt almost any DSLR lens to your format of choice. If landscape is your thing, manual focus shouldn't be a huge issue. Apparently, Sony has a very good focus peaking system.

And, like I mentioned in my first post, apparently Canon lenses will autofocus on the A7xII.

My questions are:
1. How will I fare without an EVF for exposure purposes?
2. How do the nikkor lenses shape up against the sharpness of the omd primes eg the 45mm
3. How do the nikkor lenses shape up againt the omd zooms in terms of sharpness etc.
4. How much will I miss IBIS when shooting hand held compare to the nikon lens stabilization.

Edit: D610 not D600, also not really considering the D800 due to the file sizes.

Click to expand...

I spent the better part of 4 years shooting micro four thirds heavily (I shot with a GR and the Sony RX1 in that time too) and have in the last 4 months given FF a try with the D610.

I don't shoot zooms so I can't be of much help there, for my tastes the zooms, especially the f2.8 zooms would make FF way too heavy and big for my liking....instead, I have gone all primes....the 20mm/1.8G, the Sigma 35mm Art, the Nikon 50mm/1.4G and finally. the Nikon 85mm f1.8G. These arent 'small' primes, I could have gone much smaller....but they are small enough and light enough for me to carry all four without too much trouble in a sling bag....that said, the Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art is the biggest of the bunbch, in fact it is quite a beast...BUT...it is a simply stunning piece of glass.

The lack of EVF and with it the 'real time' exposure feedback was my biggest doubt and kept me from trying FF sooner....I shot by locking exposure and tweaking with the EV comp dial to fine tune....I was certain that no EVF was not going to work for me. As it turns out, the D610 metering system is so reliable and I now trust it inherently....and the files the camera produces are so unbelievably malleable to just about any post processing punishment that not having an EVF is not an issue at all....in fact, I don't think I've used an EVF that I've enjoyed as much as I do the OVF in the D610...and yes, I had the EM1 and it had an amazing EVF....but given the choice, these days I would go for an OVF every time.

Regarding sharpness....again, I can't speak for the zooms, but the primes are stunning, not to be contentious or to intentionally offend anyone, but the Sigma 35 Art and the Nikon 20/1.8G are off the chart and nothing in m43 in this focal group I think comes even close...the Sigma is almost untouchable irresepctive of which format you compare it too as is its slightly bulkier brother the 50mm Art....it is bettered by only the Zeiss Otus....but I opted to keep my 50mm compact so went the Nikon 1.4G....the %0mm Art is probably 3 times the size and weight of the Nikon so be warned.

Regarding the IBIS...IBIS is pretty darn hard to beat for what it does but it all depends on what you 'need' it for. I found IBIS to be of much more limited to use to myself compared to many others.....If I shot static objects all night long or scenes with minimal movement then it was a dream, but if the images I wanted to capture had any movement in the scene (people moving, dancing etc) then the IBIS was actually counter-productive since it resulted to slow exposures and excessive motion blur....a neat trick every now and then but annoying when EVERY shot becomes a motion blur shot....meaning in order to freeze the action somewhat, significantly higher ISOs were required....and in terms of ISO....between FF and m43....well, that's not even an argument IMO. For things like serious landscape and milkyway shots....well, you're probably going to be shooting from a tripod anyway in which case you would be turning IBIS off.

The best advice I can give you is that you should give it a try and see for yourself....these are my own opinions and views and you need to form your own based on your needs and what works for you. I will just add that a FF kit doesn't need to be massive and heavy...IF...you are willing to go for primes....but if its the f2.8 zooms you're after, well, then you're going to be lugging around some pretty heavy gear. My current setup works really well FOR ME....and I've paired it up with the little but very capable LX100 when size and weight is an issue.

I highly advice you to go with the Nikon D750 instead. It's a much better and reliable camera than the D600/D610 as it is more compact and faster than the D600/D610 for not much more extra money.......

Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of the D600/D610, but that is almost entirely based on the AF system and that I shot events with my Nikon gear. For the OP needs there might not be much difference between the two.

I'm not REALLY into landscapes / cityscapes / etc so IBIS and VC are nice. But when I AM trying I pull out a tripod and turn them off. So if this is why you're gong down this road a good tripod would be worth more than either.

The second point, and one that kind of makes me laugh a little, is EVF vs OVF. Remember it's only been a few years that we've had really nice EVFs and even less that maybe 80-90% of shooters (wild @$$ guess, but you get the point) wouldn't have said they hate EVFs. I mean there have been threads all over about Fuji changing OVFs to EVFs and many have not been kind.

I've been shooting Nikon digital since about 2004 with the D70 and FX since 2009 when I got my first D700. I've never really had an issue with metering. And with m4/3 I also tend to rely on the exposure gauge more than the EVF or LCD, habit I guess.

My take is slightly different. I like both Nikon and Micro 4/3, I am not a professional mostly I shoot kids sports, family, travel shots. I tried real hard to choose between both systems, in the end I'm just sticking with both.

1. Between EVF and and OVF, I hate to sound like wishy-washy but there are advantages to each. I love the live histogram on my EVF. But for sports and speed the OVF can't be beat.

2. My opinion, the Nikon focus tracking and lenses are the whole reason you put up with a bulky camera that costs too much. The lenses are the real deal. Primes and zooms both, doesn't matter they work like they're supposed to. Take your pick, they're all good. I have used the 50mm 1.4, 60mm micro, 85 1.8G, I am tempted by the Sigma 35mm Art too.

3. Zooms I stay away from except for sports, or if they're small. Even the 24-120 f4 is too big for me, I use the 24-85 VR, and 80-200 2.8 D. This has no VR but since I use it for sports it doesn't matter. It does weight a lot. There is a reason wedding photographers all still use Nikon and Canon zooms and flash. The lenses just work.

4. I do not really miss IBIS because I use Panasonic cameras for the most part so I don't change anything. Nikon VR is good for 3-4 stops. However it's nice to have IBIS in those times when you need it, like indoors with a prime lens.

Ok bikerhiker you have made me rule out the D610 after doing some heavy reading the 750 looks great while still avoiding the giant file sizes of the D800

I may have to reconsider the A7II based on some of your opinions also.

Click to expand...

The Sony A7ii at least on paper looks really good. In the near future, later this summer or early fall, Pentax is releasing a FF body too. It will be interesting to see what options they will have as opposed to the competition. The Sony A7ii has a much smaller format as opposed to the Nikon too.

I'm not a fan of the D600/D610, but that is almost entirely based on the AF system and that I shot events with my Nikon gear. For the OP needs there might not be much difference between the two.

But I would still look at the D800e.

Click to expand...

My only issue with the D800/E is that those early bodies had some focus issues. My D800 still has left focus problems that are most noticeable with fast lenses. I even sent it to get fixed and it's still showing issues with certain lenses (mainly wide, fast glass).

Have been a Nikon shooter for many, many years. Have a D800 for landscape, D700 for my MF AIS lens collection and D300 for occasional air show use. In August of 2012 I choose the OMD EM5 as my 2nd system and sold off my Nikon DX lenses. Have slowly come to use the M4/3 system more so than the Nikon gear and now have the EM1 and EM5II and the M4/3 lenses in my sig. Use the Olys for portrait, street shooting, travel and hiking photos and just love it.

Some observations:
1. The dynamic range on the 24MP Nikon bodies is not that great of a difference vs. the 16MP Olympus, especially if you have good software like LR or PS. However the added MP in the D800 series is noticeable. The suggestion to get a refurbished D800 is a good one. (My D800 has never had any focus issues and I use the 85 f1.4 and 135 f/2 for portrait work.)
2. The Oly 12-40 pro is every bit as good as my Nikon 24-70 f/2.8. I consider it better because of the IQ, weight savings, and added range. For this reason I have just decided to get the Oly 40-150 f2.8 pro and plan to sell my 24-70 and 70-200 VR f/2.8 Nikons. They are just too large and heavy to carry for travel and hiking, when such an excellent, lightweight alternate is available.
3. The Nikon 14-28 does not accept screw on filters that I use for my landscape work (nor does the M4/3 7-14 versions either). For this reason I bought the Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 which accepts 77mm filters. It is a great lens, maybe not quite as sharp as the uber sharp 14-28, but more than enough for my landscape work. The 16-35 Nikon is another alternate.
4. A tilt shift lens is very useful for landscape work too. I have the Nikon 45mm PCE and love it, but most opt for the 24mm. As far as I know, there are no M4/3 tilt and shift lenses.
5. Nikon has a range of great AF primes in the 1.4 to f2 range. This added stop or 2 will be useful over 2.8 zooms. Rather than the 50 1.8, I would look at the 28 to 35mm range and a 85 and consider carrying 2.
6. Don't discount the old MF Nikkors, they are fantastic. There is a HUGE thread at Fred Miranda about them that will amaze at what can be done with 25 to 50 year old lenses.